Docket No PU Complaint of Mad Hatter Utility, Inc. and Paradise Lakes Utility, LLC Against Verizon Florida LLC

Transcription

1 Oulaney L. WRoark 111 VEe President & General Counsel. Southeast Region Legal Department St Concourse Parhay. NE Atlanta. Georgia 08 December 1,00 Phone Fax 77C Ann Cole, Commission Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 40 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL -080 Re: Docket No. 001-PU Complaint of Mad Hatter Utility, Inc. and Paradise Lakes Utility, LLC Against Verizon Florida LLC Dear Ms. Cole: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are an original and 1 copies each of the Rebuttal Testimonies of Deborah B. Kampert and Donald W. Cowart on behalfof Verizon Florida LLC Also enclosed is a diskette with copies of the testimonies in Word format. Service has been made as Certificate of Service. If there are any questions regarding this filing, at (770) tas Enclosures

2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing were sent via U.S. mail on December 1,00 to the following: Staff Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 40 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL -080 Mad Hatter Utility, Inc. Paradise Lakes Utility, LLC 48 Raden Drive Land 0' Lakes, FL F. Marshall Deterding, Esq. Rose Law Firm 48 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, FL 01 ~pux Dulane. ORoark 111

3 BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Complaint of Mad Hatter Utility, Inc. ) Docket No. 001-PU and Paradise Lakes Utility, LLC Against 1 Verizon Florida LLC ) REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH B. KAMPERT ON BEHALF OF VERIZON FLORIDA LLC DECEMBER 1,00

4 1 Q. ARE YOU THE SAME DEBORAH KAMPERT WHO PROVIDED A. Yes. DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE? Q. A. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY? The purpose of my Rebuttal Testimony is to address some of the points concerning Issues A, B and 4 raised by Mr. DeLucenay in his Direct Testimony on behalf of Mad Hatter Utility, Inc. ( Mad Hatter ) and Paradise Lakes Utility ( Paradise Lake ). I also will address Mr. DeLucenay s testimony concerning a dispute that is not at issue in this case ISSUE A: SINCE JANUARY 1,, WHAT PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THAT WERE BILLED BY VERIZON TO MAD HATTER AND/OR PARADISE LAKES WATER TREATMENT PLANTS REMAIN IN DISPUTE? 18 Q. 1 AT PAGE OF HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. DELUCENAY STATES THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT VERIZON S LOCAL 0 1 OFFICES FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN EARLY 008. VERIZON HAVE ANY RECORD OF SUCH CONTACTS? DOES A. 4 No. As I stated in my Direct Testimony, Verizon has no record that Complainants ever called in a trouble ticket on these lines. If Mad Hatter or Paradise Lakes had called Verizon s repair line to open a trouble ticket, Verizon would have a record of the call. Verizon s bills 1

5 1 provide the number to call to report service issues, and Verizon makes records of trouble reports called in by customers. 4 Q. 6 7 A. MR. DELUCENAY STATES THAT COMPLAINANTS ATTORNEY SENT VERIZON A LETTER DATED AUGUST 7, 008 CONCERING THESE LINES. PLEASE RESPOND. After Verizon received the letter, a Verizon representative attempted to 8 call the B1 lines and they appeared to be working. Verizon acknowledges, however, that the lines were out of service when Verizon technicians were dispatched this year after the complaint in this case was filed. To resolve this issue, Verizon is willing to provide a credit of $47 for the B1 services from August 008 until service was restored in July ISSUE B: SINCE JANUARY 1,, WHAT PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THAT WERE BILLED BY VERIZON TO MAD HATTER AND/OR PARADISE LAKES LIFT STATION LOCATIONS REMAIN IN DISPUTE? 1 0 Q. HAS VERIZON CONTINUED ITS INVESTIGATION OF THIS CLAIM? 1 A. Yes. During our investigation we learned that Don Cowart had information concerning the circuits in question. Mr. Cowart is submitting Rebuttal Testimony that provides additional information on this issue. 4

6 1 Q. 4 AT PAGE OF HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. DELUCANEY STATES THAT MAD HATTER NEVER REQUESTED ALARM MONITORING SERVICE AND NEVER AGREED TO PAY FOR IT. BASED ON VERIZON S INVESTIGATION, IS THAT STATEMENT CORRECT? 6 A. No. Based on Verizon s investigation, it appears that Mad Hatter received alarm monitoring service from approximately 1 until at least 1, was billed for that service and paid for it. As explained in Mr. Cowart s Rebuttal Testimony, during a conversation between Mr. DeLucenay and Mr. Cowart in 1, Mr. DeLucenay s statements demonstrated that he understood that the bills Mad Hatter had been receiving were for the alarm monitoring service and that Mad Hatter was required to pay for the service. 1 Q A DO VERIZON S RECORDS REFLECT WHETHER MAD HATTER AND GTE MADE OTHER ARRANGMENTS FOR SERVICE AFTER THE ALARM MONITORING SERVICE WAS DISCONTINUED IN 17 Verizon s records are not clear on this point. As stated in Mr. Cowart s Rebuttal Testimony, based on his discussion with Mr. DeLucaney, Mr. Cowart understood that Mr. DeLucenay would be calling GTEs business office to discuss what arrangements could be made. Unfortunately, Verizon does not have records reflecting what arrangements the parties may have discussed or agreed to. What we do know is that Verizon subsequently issued monthly bills for alarm monitoring service and that Mad Hatter paid those bills for several years.

7 1 Q. 4 A. 6 WHAT ARE THE EARLIEST BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE RELATING TO ALARM MONITORING SERVICE? The earliest bills to Verizon has found and produced for the alarm monitoring service date back to 00, while Mad Hatter has presented bills from July Q. 11 A. 1 1 AT PAGES AND 6 OF HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. DELUCENAY STATES THAT MAD HATTER HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT IT WAS BEING BILLED FOR. IS THAT CORRECT? No. Separate bills for the four lines in question were sent monthly and in each case related to only one service, which was stated to be Alarm monitoring service. 1 ISSUE 4: WHAT RELIEF, IF ANY, IS APPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS THE 16 ABOVE-REFERENCED DISPUTE BETWEEN VERIZON AND 17 MAD HATTEWPARADISE LAKES? 18 1 Q. IS VERIZON WILLING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE COMPLAINANTS 0 1 A. HAVE RAISED CONCERING THE B1 LINE OUTAGE? Yes. Verizon is willing to resolve this issue by providing Mad Hatter and Paradise Lakes a credit of $

8 1 Q. IS VERIZON WILLING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE COMPLAINANTS HAVE RAISED CONCERNING THE ALARM MONITORING SERVICE LINES? A. Yes. Verizon is willing to provide a substantial credit to resolve this claim and has renewed its efforts to reach a settlement with the Complainants. 8 WASTEWATER SERVICE LATERAL MAIN ISSUE 11 Q. BEGINNING AT PAGE 8 OF HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, MR. DELUCANEY RAISES ANOTHER CLAIM THAT CONCERNS A A. No. BREAK IN A WASTEWATER SERVICE LATERAL MAIN. THAT CLAIM RELATE TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE? DOES Q. A. Q. WILL VERIZON ADDRESS THIS CLAIM WITH MAD HATTER? Yes. My understanding is that Verizon requested more information so that Verizon and its contractor could investigate the claim. Mad Hatter recently provided additional information that is being reviewed. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY? A. Yes. 4